jackie: a fox news alert in new york. because britain asked defense ministry shows the airstrikes on targets in syria were a success and we are awaiting a news conference with british prime minister teresa may. we will take you there when she steps to the podium. syria instated the reports three civilians wounded in the strike on a facility, the attack was derailing incoming missiles, jim mattis says there are no reports

of us losses. jackie: the attack in response to the suspected chemical attack in duma. the president giving the bashar al-assad regime a warning. >> the purpose of our actions tonight is to establish a strong deterrent against the production, spread and use of chemical weapons, establishing this deterrent is a vital national security interest of the united states. the combined american, british entrance response integrate all instruments of our national power. military, economic and diplomatic. we are prepared to sustain this response until the syrian regime stops its use of prohibited chemical agents. kelly: the strikes carried out

by air force bombers and fighter jets. joseph dunford discussed the targets that were selected. >> we conducted strikes with two allies that result in long-term degradation in syria's capability to research and deploy chemical and biological weapons. important infrastructure was destroyed which will result in a setback for the syrian regime. they will lose years of research and developing data, specialized equipment and chemical weapons precursors. this was a strong message to the regime that their actions were inexcusable and also inflicted maximum damage without unnecessary risk to innocent civilians. kelly: let's go to connor powell live from jerusalem. >> reporter: the pentagon firing 100 missiles into syria just

after 4:00 local time. 70 some hours ago the bashar al-assad regime painted a picture that life is gone on in syria as it was the day before. there are videos of bashar al-assad going to work this morning and his supporters have been in the street in damascus celebrating and cheering the bashar al-assad regime but three targets were hit by us, british and french jets. the pentagon saying among the targets were chemical research facility in the master stand a chemical storage facility, one of those was already hit by israeli jets in the last few years. we also understand the duma airbase was targeted by the us, russia is claiming the air defense system shot down 12

missiles and there wasn't much damage. we are still waiting for a damage assessment later from the pentagon in terms of what damage was done not only to the base but those facilities but syrian leaders painted a picture this morning that the missiles have done very little damage not only to their infrastructure but ability to carry out strikes and attacks on opposition forces. the syrian military officers saying the bashar al-assad regime will fight in battle, quote, terrorists which is how they describe opposition forces in syria. the regime is confident at least publicly in the aftermath of these attacks. also getting the response from the regional and international community, the president of turkey saying this is the appropriate response, i ran warning regional consequences

and we heard from an israeli spokesman saying donald trump made clear the use of chemical weapons crosses a redline tonight under american leadership. we see some responses. concern going forward, and going forward in the past. a similar strike in syria. there wasn't much of a response from the bashar al-assad regime, will there be a response going forward? could this escalate to something that escalates into original conflict. kelly: thanks for the report from jerusalem. jackie: from the washington

bureau the founder of the national institute and senior advisor to the house intelligence committee and former white house counsel to president bush. thank you for joining us this morning. you have been around for some big decisions in washington. what do you think of the decision tonight to bomb syria? >> the president made clear the use of chemical weapons was not appropriate. to get the french and british joining with us demonstrating the international coalition for these activities. kelly: air celebrating that the missiles that hit those targets didn't do anything. is that the head game president trump is saying that we are not messing around or are we trying to destroy them? which is more important? the destruction of those sites or letting them know we are here

and not messing around? >> there is part of the head game, they say nothing happened and we are saying we are here to stay but at the end of the data is important to take out these sites to store the precursor chemical where they might be launching airstrikes from. and long-term capabilities, it is a combined effort. we won't take it anymore and going to respond and a sustained campaign. if we need to do it again we will. jackie: what will we see in coming days? >> they don't like what we are doing. they don't want to get into a shooting war with the united states. that is not what we are talking about. we see a lot of bluster. jackie: this is what the

president said to he ran and russia talking about airstrikes knowing it has happened. he said, quote, we are going to go to a press conference right now. teresa may is speaking, let's tune in to that. >> conducted, coordinated and targeted strikes and chemical weapons capability and deter them. for the uk's part, four rf tornadoes launched missiles at a military facility from 15 miles west where the regime is assessed to keep chemical weapons in breach of syria's obligation. the full assessment of the strike is ongoing, let me set out why i have taken this

action. last saturday, 7500 people including young children were killed in a despicable and barbaric attack in duma. and there were further casualties which we work with our allies to establish what happened, and indications were this was a chemical weapons attack. we have seen the harrowing images of people, women and children lying dead with foam in their mouth. by the time this chemical weapon was unleashed, seeking shelter in basement. first-hand accounts of ngos and aid workers, the horrific suffering including burns to the eyes, suffocation, skin discoloration and the chlorine like odor surrounding the victims. as the world health organization has received reports that

hundreds of patients arrived at syria's health facilities with signs and symptoms consistent for toxic chemicals. and we were clear about what was responsible for this atrocity. a significant body of information including intelligence indicates the syrian regime is responsible for the native attack. i cannot tell you everything but let me give you example of some evidence that leads to this conclusion. a barrel bomb was used to deliver the chemicals. multiple open-source reports claims the regime helicopter was observed above the city of duma on 7 april. the opposition does not operate helicopters that use barrel bonds and reliable intelligence indicates syrian military officials coordinated what appears to be the use of

chlorine in duma. no other group could have carried out the attack. the fact that this attack should surprise no one. we know the syrian regime has an abhorrent record of using chemical weapons against its own people. on 21 august, 2013, over 800 people were killed and thousands injured in a chemical attack. and prior to that summer. on 4 april last year the syrian regime used sarah and against its people, killing 100 and based on the regime's consistent pattern of behavior and cumulative analysis of specific instances we judge it is highly likely the syrian regime has

continued to use chemical weapons and continue to do so. this must be stopped. we tried to use every diplomatic channel but our efforts have been repeatedly thwarted both on the ground and in the united nations. following the sarah and attack in august 2013 the syrian regime committed to dismantle its chemical weapons program, and promised to ensure syria did this with chemical weapons. these commitments have not been met. a recent report from the organization for prohibition of chemical weapons has said syria's declaration of the chemical weapons program is incomplete as this indicates it continues undeclared stocks of nerve agent or chemicals and is likely to be continuing with

chemical weapons production. the opc w inspectors investigated previous attacks and on four occasions decided the regime was responsible and on each occasion we have seen every sign of chemical weapons being used any attempt to hold the perpetrators to account has been blocked by russia at the un security council with six such vetoes since the start of 2017. just this week the russian vetoed a draft resolution that would have established an independent investigation into the latest attack even making the grotesque and absurd claim that it was staged by britain. we have no choice but to conclude diplomatic action on its own would not be anymore effective in the future than it has been in the past. in the last week the uk government has been working intensively with international

partners to build a picture of what action we need to take to prevent and deter future humanitarian catastrophes caused by chemical weapon attacks. when the cabinet met thursday we consider the advice of the atty. gen. national security adviser and chief of the defense staff. and we were updated on the latest intelligence picture and based on this advice we agreed it was right and legal to take military action with our closest allies to alleviate further humanitarian suffering by degrading syria's chemical weapons capability in deterring their use. this is not about interfering in the civil war and it is not about regime change. as i discussed with donald trabant president macroand it was an effective strike with clear boundaries that expressed to avoid escalation and

impossible to prevent civilian casualties. together we prepared specific and limited targets, a chemical weapons storage and production facility, a key chemical weapons research center and chemical weapons attacks. and would significantly research, development and deploy chemical weapons. a year ago after the atrocity, the us conducted a strike on the airfield, stopping the effect on chemical weapons. they were significantly larger year ago and specifically designed for greater impact on the capability on

not stand by and tolerate the use of chemical weapons. i want to be clear this military action to deter the use of chemical weapons does not stand alone. we must remain committed to this at large. the syrian people, it remains a political solution. the regime to enable humanitarian access to those in desperate need as the us continues to strive for both. these are about deterring barbaric use of chemical weapons in syria and beyond. to achieve this, there must be a wider diplomatic effort including the full range of medical and economic leaders, to strengthen the global norms prohibiting use of chemical weapons which have stood for

nearly a century. of a much lower order of magnitude, the use of a nerve agent on the streets of the uk in recent weeks is part of the pattern of disregard for these norms. while this action is specifically about deterring the syrian regime it will send a clear signal to anyone else who believes they can use chemical weapons with impunity. there is no graver decision for prime minister than to commit our forces to combat and this is the first time i have had to do so. they have served our country with the greatest professionalism and bravery and we know the huge debt of gratitude. we would have preferred an alternative task but there is none. we cannot allow the use of chemical weapons to become

normalized in syria, on the streets of the uk or elsewhere. we must reinstate the global consensus that chemical weapons cannot be used. this action is absolutely in britain's national interest. the lesson of history is whether global rules and standards that keep us safe come under threat, we must take a stand and defend some. that is what our country has always done and what we will continue to do. i will take a number of questions. >> thank you, prime minister. your logic is the chemical attack must not go unpunished. will you do the same again if bashar al-assad does the same again as you suggested he has?

do you think you have the public's consent that you have not consulted parliament? >> as i said in my statement, the purpose of the action that took place last night was to degrade and deter the capability of the syrian regime to use chemical weapons and i also said a full assessment has not been completed but we believe the action was successful but the syrian regime should be resolved in relation to the use of chemical weapons and i have taken this decision and i believe it is the right thing to do. i believe it is in our national interests and also important for the international community to be very clear about this issue, that we've seen people appearing to think they can use chemical weapons with impunity. and restore the issue as i said

that has existed for nearly a century the use of chemical weapons is illegal, it is band and we cannot accept it. >> thank you, prime minister. you were hinting toward this meal of your statement about possible further, wider action against supporters of the regime. can you explain why you haven't taken action against russian money in london the same way the united states has? we appear to be in a propaganda war with the russians. why are they not explain what you are explaining today about accusing britain of the capability for the crimes you just received? >> on the first point, in response to the use of nerve agents we are looking at every

aspect of the action that can be taken. we in general work against illicit finances, criminal finances in the uk and we will continue to do so. you say the prime minister has been out over the past week and i did two television interviews in the past week in which i set out the need for action and the need to restore the international norms of the recognition that chemical weapons should not be used. i said we were working with international partners and allies to ascertain an assessment was what happened on the ground and what action was necessary. we have done that and the action we saw last night was the result of that work. >> i wonder if you could explain your decision and your thinking on not seeking prior approval or

debate from parliament on this decision because as you know, jeremy corbin and on the other side, kenneth clark, said they feel that should have taken place. there is a feeling, back in 2003. >> as i just said it is action i feel was necessary and the right thing for us to do. we have been working with partners over the past week, making the fullest possible assessment on the ground and continue what action is necessary. and to do that in a timely fashion so that we could act with sufficient understanding of what has happened on the ground and proper planning of any action but to do so in a timescale with a clear message to the regime and also important, i believe it is

important, the gravest decision a prime minister can take is to send service personnel into action, into combat. when we do that we know it to them to protect their safety and security. and for operational security reasons we act in the way we did, properly plan it and act within a timescale that is right to protect operational security and give a clear message to the regime. robert? >> you explicitly linked the overnight action to the poisoning, was the overnight action just about bashar al-assad or was explicitly a warning to russia as well? the secretary-general's warning

that the cold war is back, saying we don't have the institutional structures to contain it. how do we restore a sense of calm and security? >> i refer to salisbury, the use of a nerve agent on the united kingdom. the action that took place last night was focused on degrading and deterring operational capability and willingness of the syrian regime to continue to use chemical weapons. there have been many instances we have seen the use of those chemical weapons but it should also be a message to us that the international community is not going to stand by and allow chemical weapons to be used with impunity. for nearly a century we have had

a general understanding on chemical weapons convention that chemical weapons were illegal, their use was banned, and we have in recent times seem chemical weapons being used. is right the international community has come together and said we would not accept this and give a clear message to reestablish the international norm that chemical weapons are banned and should not be used. >> of chemical weapons are indeed used again in syria, will the united kingdom take part in more targeted strikes? if it is in coming weeks, parliament will no longer be in recess will you feel bigger pressure to actually ask for the green light? how important is it to you that pres. macroin his participating in this operation?

how would you characterize the franco british -- about this operation? >> the parliamentary function, i should have made reference to this, i will be in parliament on monday to make a statement to parliament and give parliamentarians the opportunity to question me about this. i believe it was right to take the action we have done and the timing that i indicated in relation to assessment planning and operational security. but it was to send a clear message about the use of chemical weapons and the action taken, significant integrated for chemical weapons to deter their willingness to use chemical weapons and there should be no doubt of the resolve and that is an

international resolve on these issues and make sure we returned to the situation where it is accepted that the use of chemical weapons is illegal, is band, they should not be used. this is a tripartite operation with the united states, france and the united kingdom. you asked about the franco british relationship, we have a close relationship on security past in the summit we had earlier this year. we have been working increasingly closely on this. [inaudible questi >> will you authorize a strike but without always -- >> in relation to this i will be going to parliament and making a statement in parliament.

on the wider issue, this was a limited and targeted strike that took place last night by the three partners but nobody should be in any doubt of our resolve to see a return to that international norm on the use of chemical weapons. >> the independent. the syrian civil war has seen a displacement of people in the middle east towards west. i want to know if your action will exacerbate that and cause more refugees to come to the west and tell us what extra planning or actions you will be taking to address that point to help the refugees. >> as a result of what has been taking place in syria the last

few years, we have seen a large number of people displaced in syria and refugees from syria being displaced to countries in the region and further afield and we have been receiving a number of syrian refugees in the uk ourselves that our focus is on support for refugees in the region with considerable support to countries that have been providing refuge for them, lebanon, jordan and turkey are the three countries providing a refuge for them. the purpose of this action is to prevent further humanitarian suffering. nobody can be anything but appalled at the scenes we read about from the attack that took place in duma. it is right, i believe, the international community has acted to give a clear message on the use of chemical weapons.

>> prime minister, are you concerned that you do not have the support of the bridge people for this action? polls have shown a fifth of people support further action in syria and what is your message to people who are leery of actions you have taken? >> i have taken this decision because i believe it is the right thing to do. my message to people is this is about the use of chemical weapons. we have had for nearly 100 years had a generally accepted position in the international community that their use is illegal, they are banned. that has generally been accepted. we have seen that international norm being eroded. it has been eroded in a number of ways, the nerve agent used on the streets in the united kingdom. we have seen the syrian regime

continuing to use chemical weapons despite the fact that after august 2013 they said they were dismantling their chemical weapons in russia guaranteed that was taking place. that commitment has not been met. it is important for the alleviation of humanitarian suffering in syria but if we look at this more widely it is in all our interests that we restore that international norm on use of chemical weapons. >> how much did you agonize about this decision? did it keep you awake at night? >> as i said in my statement, there is no graver decision than to send service personnel into combat and it is a decision that

i have not taken lightly. there have been a number of discussions with the national security council and the cabinet together with our american and french allies on this project the end of the day it was the right thing to do precisely because we have seen a growing use of chemical weapons and we must say this must stop entities in all our interests for us to ensure the use of chemical weapons stops and in the interest of all our futures to ensure the use of chemical weapons stops. >> toby helm from the observer. there has been no parliamentary approval for reasons of timing or anything else but when parliament resumes next week do you intend to try to get parliament as a whole to back your strategy which you are

opening the door to possible further action from what you say? do you intend to push for a vote to get parliament behind you? >> you picked up in your question that the decision was taken for operational reasons after the opportunity for the fullest possible assessment and proper planning and i believe it was the right thing to do but we will be getting an opportunity, the first opportunity when parliament sits, on monday for me to go to parliament to make a statement and hear the views of parliamentarians on this issue and i will be clear with parliament as i have been clear this morning and with others that this is not about action to intervene in the civil war. it is not about anything to do with regime change. it is about the use of chemical weapons. it is a limited and targeted strike that has taken place in

order to degrade and deter the capability to use chemical weapons. the second row here. >> from sky news, arabia, you repeatedly talked about the victims of the duma incidents. have you considered or are you considering the medical care that was given in this country in the west and if it emerges that the syrian regime has other chemical sites that have not been attacked would you go after them and would you enlarge your tripartite coalition? >> one of the issues we had with other international parties have concern for, the ability to

access and provide the support necessary to those who have been suffering from the humanitarian catastrophe but more generally in syria. we made a number of attempts at the united nations and others in other ways to try to ensure humanitarian access that can be provided with proper medical care and we will continue to push for that humanitarian access so those who are innocent victims can be provided with the support they need. i said in response to other questions i believe it is important this was a collective action taken by the uk together with france and the united states, there have been some supported statements from international leaders that have come out following the action. the intent of the international community must be to make every effort through a variety of

channels to ensure that we can give a clear message about the use of chemical weapons. that is what this action has been about and what we will press on in a variety of ways. just behind you. >> because of this continuing and tightening tension between the west and russia, some people have started to call the situational cold war. what would you do, what could you do in order not to let military activity lead to a new cold war? >> this is been focused on the activities of the syrian regime. the syrian regime has been backed by russia. this has been about chemical weapons. we need the resources of a wider

issue, peace and ability and security in syria, political situation to that. we will continue to work with all partners and russia's involvement in that will be a part of that to bring about that security in a political solution if there is a future. >> given the failure as you have said in a statement of all diplomatic efforts so far, what is the plan following these strikes? your plan following these strikes? >> diplomatic efforts have not had the impact we wished it would have. we have taken military action and we will renew diplomatic efforts as well and some of those will be through the united nations to press for popular

investigator re-opportunities and holding into account those who use chemical weapons. the aim of this is to degrade operational capability of the syrian regime and deter their willingness to use chemical weapons but there is a wider issue of the message for the international community about use chemical weapons and we will continue to pursue that through the united nations. >> thank you. were there any communications with the russian government or military about possible military action? before it was taken? >> this is not something the united kingdom has been involved in.

this is a complicated picture in terms of operations that take place in syria. full and proper planning was put in place to ensure that we could mitigate and minimize the impact on civilians and ensure that these strikes were targeted at the chemical weapons capability of the syrian regime. >> nina from the press association was what would you say to britain and others who fear reprisals in the wake of the attacks? >> we are providing support and looked at those britons who are overseas who might be concerned about such attacks. the foreign office is providing advice of what to do in these circumstances.

>> going into duma today - why not wait one or two days to get formal proof? especially since the russians are at the moment carefully framing information? >> first of all, over the past week, we have assessed what has happened on the ground. as i indicated in my statement, i have given a number of examples of factors that were present that led us to believe not just that this was a chemical weapons attack but a weapons attack at the hand of the syrian regime. this is not the only attack that has taken place and the reason for our action isn't simply what happened in duma but a wide pattern of the use of chemical weapons. we have identity -- investigated and identified the syrian regime

of chemical weapons and it was important the point of which we had the information that showed us all indications were this was a chemical weapons attack. the plan had been put in place and we took the action that was necessary. over there. >> given that chemical attacks happened before in syria and the uk to take such measures yesterday do you think your decision last night about syria would have been the same as the source of the attack didn't happen? >> we looked at this in terms of what happened in syria and chemical weapons in syria. the united states chose to act alone in relation to those attacks. i believe on this occasion there was a wider collective action that took place which shows the

strength of the action that was being taken. it was significant greater action but also shows strength in the international community. we have been concerned about the use of chemical weapons in syria and the evidence that has been gathered about continued use of chemical weapons that we felt was right to participate. we have three more, at the back. ? >> it was the right thing to do.

it is a prerogative and the first opportunity to question this and i will be in parliament, the intent of this action is it does degrade and deter the syrian regime, we will follow up the diplomatic efforts in relation to the wider question of the use of chemical weapons. two more. >> in light of russia using its veto are you concerned about the effectiveness of the united nations? >> my message about the security council, membership of the security council, a limited number of countries. those that surround the security council take seriously the

responsibility they have, we hope the action that has been taken in syria will deter and degrade the syrian regime's capability and send a message to others about the use of chemical weapons. this is illegal, band, it should not happen. >> william james, reuters. this is not about regime change, why not? is it the british position now that bashar al-assad can stay as long as he doesn't use nuclear weapons? >> this was specifically about the use of chemical weapons. there is a wider question on the future political solution to syria and that is a matter we will continue in diplomatic channels with international

partners and dialogue. >> in light of the relevant - benefit of hindsight, do you feel what has happened has demonstrated the vote in 2013 to take no action proves taking no action in these cases can be as devastating as going in? >> i was a member of the government in 2013, when the government - the right thing to do and commitments given by the syrian regime in relation, and the russian committed to guaranteeing that was taking place. that has not happened and we sent a clear message on military

action. >> teresa may addressing airstrikes in syria carried out by the us, uk and france and she stated this is not about civil war regime change but trying to save lives from chemical attacks adding significantly degrading these weapons, she wanted to say we are putting the point across we must degrade and deter bashar al-assad from using chemical weapons again. let's go back to the founder of the national security institute and bring in the former assistant secretary of defense and special forces officer. we watched what she and she talked about the past 100 years there has been a standard about not wanting to use chemical weapons and everyone should respect that but she said it is getting so bad that it is happening on the streets of the uk speaking specifically of the former

russian double agent, on the streets of salisbury, he and his daughter struck by nerve agent, basically within inches of their life, and the nerve agent was used. she is talking about proliferation of it not just in syria but the streets of a domestic area in the uk. what do you say about this? where are we today in chemical weapons? >> first of all the prime minister hit it out of the park. if you took her prepared statement and got the transcript it was like a legal brief defending this action and it hit on all the right points. it is not about regime change. it is about deterring and degrading the capabilities of chemical weapons. she tied it to the overall international norm of banning

chemical weapons and trying to deter others, not just this regime, from using them. she went at it exactly the right way. the questions got off the tangents. kelly: what people were asking about why she didn't go to parliament, she said i made this decision because it is the right thing to do. 400 years we agreed the use of chemical weapons is wrong and we're seeing an erosion of that international norm. because of the immediacy of this, the united states and france. and >> a couple things stood out to me. and not about regime change, it

is about use of chemical weapons. russia has to know this is not okay. parliament - something donald trump has gotten heat for as well. this is the right thing for her to do. >> the same answer from donald trump. they consulted and informed, a robust debate. they hit the airwaves as well as has the same sort of issues, that is the way democratic forms of government work. sometimes the executive branch has to act without parliament to address specific concern and that is what this case was. jackie: when you look at these

photos, that is just not right. you see children foaming at the mouth, mothers, fathers, just not right. this is a controversial decision, we should not be there, putting ourselves in a war that we don't need to be in. >> not the first time this was done. this is chlorine laid out by teresa may. we have seen them use mustard gas and faron, they put out chemical attacks against their own people. the us government, we won't accept this anymore, we are ready to do something about this and do more if we need to and teresa may had her margaret thatcher moment, this is the evidence as we are not going to take it anymore.

>> >> the barrel bomb used in this particular - they used that bomb and inside that, able to determine that based on open sores and that is a telling sign, as jackie was talking about, people foaming at the mouth and this chemical attack that is going on, they tried the military route and wants to bring back more diplomacy. how do you blend those so you have the strength of the military and strength of trying to resolve this. >> this is a clear example, had

to use all the elements of national power, in conjunction with each other, the diplomatic element to be used but brought the military in, where we needed to go and using informational element of power, tying it together and hope it moves in the right direction and ratchets up the other elements, we wait to see what the response is. >> the question teresa may was asked is what if the strike didn't do what it was supposed to do, what if russia retaliates? what if? >> no country in the world, we

will say this course and see this through. the president made that clear, we are hearing a common theme which is this is not acceptable behavior and russia and the iranians, we are going to go back at this and not be cowed by you guys. >> the fact that this was taking place, will this exacerbate the refugee problem? more than 10 million people who were refugees as a result of the past 7 years but the civil war that has been going on, when you look at that how do you provide the humanitarian relief to get people into those areas to help save the lives of those inflicted with this terrible chemical weapon attack and still trying to survive? >> it is a real challenge.

people using chemical weapons, rescue workers going in affected by these devices and this is not a simple situation to be in and it is only going to magnify the disaster to take these actions against some people. >> your alternative is to let - >> we cannot allow that to happen. i don't think we will. this attack is not effective in accounting the goals described by donald trump and prime minister may we will see further action. kelly: the propaganda war developing with russia, russia stating the uk conducted this

attack and the prime minister denying that saying we are in a propaganda war with russia and russia has a lot to account for with actions or lack thereof on the security council in terms of blocking things with more teeth and forced into making sure syria stays nice if that is the best word for it. >> when you are in a propaganda war you have to participate. russia, syria, talking a lot of nonsense. that is to be expected. we counter it on every front and tell the truth, call them out, show people the evidence and let things fall where they may and we will come out on top. kelly: that is what we will be watching as the day develops and watching that propaganda take place and another cold war we

are trying to get away from. jackie: we will continue to follow this was we will go to "fox and friends" for a special edition of the weekend show.

. . . . >> this is "fox & friends" we begin with fox news alert, missile attacks on syria united states britain france several times overnight launching more than 100. >> president trump calling for swiftly action in response to the assad regime chemical took on this is people that killed dozens of civilians many young children. >> my fellow americans, a short time ago, ordered the united states armed forefathers to launch precision strikes on targets associated with chemical weapons about capabilities of sign d